Philer
Registered user
Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
katie5445 wrote:
You are giving them more credit than they deserve, which is not their fault. I've raised kids and I'm raising grand kids and 'parenting' does not work that way, they don't know better, unless they are taught and half the time that doesn't stick either. You cross your fingers and hope they eventually get it as they age into maturity. At the end of the day it is the parent who should know better, if not for that parent, that child would still be alive.
I would agree that depending on the circumstances the parent(s) shares in the responsibility for what happened but the teen is primarily responsible.
|
|
12/15/2017, 10:10 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Philer
Blog
|
Philer
Registered user
Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
you wouldnt let a freshman do brain surgery because he has not had the training we are not talking about training we are talking about the innate ability to be responsible.-mais
True. That's why those matters you brought up like not being able to drive a car at the age of 13 were irrelevant.
quote:
If some one isnt responsible enough to judge your actions (in a jury) how can he be responsible enough to judge his own?
I don't even believe most adults are qualified to sit on a jury. Your argument would require folks to excuse even adults if they committed a murder because of their poor judgment powers when that is precisely why they would commit a murder in the first place.
quote:
suppose for a moment that I accept your premise, would a ten yearold be responsible? a 6 year old? a three year old?
No but a 13-year-old would be.
quote:
there has to be a lower limit or you would be jailing toddlers for shooting people (Veronica Rutledge was shot dead by her two year old - what do you think 20 years in the slammer be long enough even though he would still be a young man on his release?)
True and I have no problem with a lower limit. 13 years old isn't it.
quote:
Im sorry but they absolutely did!
I still disagree. Underestimating the ability of a highly intelligent toddler to find a hidden loaded gun is not an offense that justifies prison time.
If the gun is left out or placed somewhere where a child can easily find it that is another matter.
quote:
How? both are the result of stupidity and both can result in multiple deaths - at least the drunk driver can claim that his judgement was impaired by alcohol when he was stupid presumably your parents were not judgement impaired.
A drunk driver could make that claim but it wouldn't be a valid one. There is still a big difference between knowingly risking the lives of people by drunk driving and unknowingly risking lives by leaving a gun where you believe it is safe from the curiosity of a child.
|
|
12/15/2017, 10:31 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Philer
Blog
|
mais oui
Registered user
Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
True. That's why those matters you brought up like not being able to drive a car at the age of 13 were irrelevant
sorry Im not following your logic I know lots of 13 and 14 yearolds that can drive perfectly well but are not allowed to.
It snot a matter of lack of ability it is a matter of law - with the freshman brain surgeon it is the opposite he hasnt the training but might be allowed in law if the patient consented.
quote:
I don't even believe most adults are qualified to sit on a jury
YAWN!
quote:
true and I have no problem with a lower limit. 13 years old isn't it.
If not 13 then what?
quote:
I still disagree. Underestimating the ability of a highly intelligent toddler to find a hidden loaded gun
If you were a highly intelligent toddler then your parents more than any one would have know that and should have acted accordingly.
BTW the only safe place for a gun not in use is in a safe - I dont consider trigger locks adequate
If the gun is left out or placed somewhere where a child can easily find it that is another matter.
who decides what is a place that a highly intelligent toddler might discover? in MY view the arbiter of that should be a highly intelligent toddler if the toddler finds it is wasnt hidden well enough!
quote:
A drunk driver could make that claim but it wouldn't be a valid one. There is still a big difference between knowingly risking the lives of people by drunk driving and unknowingly risking lives by leaving a gun where you believe it is safe from the curiosity of a child.
A driver who is alcohol impaired not only has his ability to drive impaired he also has his ability to make wise decisions impaired.
Your parents had no such impairment and must surely have realised how highly intelligent you were and failed to take adequate steps to safe guard both you and the wider community from a firearm
---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
|
|
12/15/2017, 10:57 pm
|
Link to this post
PM mais oui
Blog
|
Philer
Registered user
Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
sorry Im not following your logic I know lots of 13 and 14 yearolds that can drive perfectly well but are not allowed to.-mais
Yes but whether they can drive perfectly well or not they bear responsibility for what they do if they commit a crime.
quote:
It snot a matter of lack of ability it is a matter of law - with the freshman brain surgeon it is the opposite he hasnt the training but might be allowed in law if the patient consented.
And what the law doesn't allow them to do in regard to driving a car or performing brain surgery is irrelevant. They are responsible when they commit a crime even when they are 13 years old.
quote:
If not 13 then what?
Significantly younger. Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities. If a girl that young can be responsible for a murder then a 13 year old boy can be responsible for negligent homicide with a gun.
quote:
If you were a highly intelligent toddler then your parents more than any one would have know that and should have acted accordingly.
It can be difficult to gauge the intelligence of a toddler. They can fool you.
quote:
BTW the only safe place for a gun not in use is in a safe - I dont consider trigger locks adequate
I would have no objection to legally requiring that guns be kept in safes for two reasons. One to keep them out of the hands of children and two, to keep them out of the hands of criminals.
quote:
who decides what is a place that a highly intelligent toddler might discover? in MY view the arbiter of that should be a highly intelligent toddler if the toddler finds it is wasnt hidden well enough!
An adult has to decide where a gun is safely beyond a child's reach and you've already decided that. A safe. And I agree.
quote:
A driver who is alcohol impaired not only has his ability to drive impaired he also has his ability to make wise decisions impaired.
That just sounds like something a drunk wants people to believe when he is looking for people to let him get away with some crime. In reality unless he was a complete idiot even before he got drunk he will know that he isn't in any shape to be driving a car when he is staggering to his car and has trouble putting the key in the ignition.
quote:
Your parents had no such impairment and must surely have realised how highly intelligent you were and failed to take adequate steps to safe guard both you and the wider community from a firearm.
I didn't go outside with the gun and terrorize the neighborhood. I just pointed it at them inside our home putting the fear of God into them. They learned their lesson and the guns were removed from the house.
|
|
12/17/2017, 8:00 am
|
Link to this post
PM Philer
Blog
|
mais oui
Registered user
Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
Yes but whether they can drive perfectly well or not they bear responsibility for what they do if they commit a crime.
that really doesnt follow
they are not allowed to drive - no matter how proficient they are because they lack the essential skills of decision making and if their decision making processes are such that they are prohibited from driving why are they capable of making decisions about a gun?
Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities.
Firstly that was a very long time ago and secondly 12 years for two murders and a sexual mutilation - not too bad.
To say that she was 'locked up' is a little misleading , yes she was deprived of her liberty but she was not placed in jail it was more like a secure boarding school
---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
|
|
12/17/2017, 12:07 pm
|
Link to this post
PM mais oui
Blog
|
Philer
Registered user
Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
that really doesnt follow
they are not allowed to drive - no matter how proficient they are because they lack the essential skills of decision making and if their decision making processes are such that they are prohibited from driving why are they capable of making decisions about a gun?-mais
You're still comparing two different things. Not being able to make decisions about things which require adult level abilities is not the same thing as not having the mental capacity to recognize basic things like the fact that pointing a gun at some innocent person is not a good idea.
Teenagers, including ones who are 13, are not complete idiots with no concept of reality at all. They are responsible when they do something that is extremely stupid like shooting and killing their friend.
quote:
Remember Mary Bell? She was only 10 when she first committed murder. She was locked up for 12 years by the British authorities.
Firstly that was a very long time ago and secondly 12 years for two murders and a sexual mutilation - not too bad.
True but still less time locked up than what some older teen males received in this country for murder. Some were let out after only a few months of incarceration. And that was in the relatively liberal country of England, not the "law and order" USA.
The main point though is that what she did was taken seriously and she was held accountable even at the very young age of 10.
quote:
To say that she was 'locked up' is a little misleading , yes she was deprived of her liberty but she was not placed in jail it was more like a secure boarding school
Not surprising since she was initially only 10 years old.
|
|
12/17/2017, 8:16 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Philer
Blog
|
mais oui
Registered user
Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
True but still less time locked up than what some older teen males received in this country for murder. Some were let out after only a few months of incarceration. And that was in the relatively liberal country of England, not the "law and order" USA.
sorry but to me that seems garbled.
you compare Mary Bells's treatment In UK to that of older people in the US.
and then compare UK as a 'relatively liberal country' to 'law and order US'
But Mary Bell was 50 years ago and followed close behind the crimes of the 'Moors Murderers' and shortly after we had confined the death penalty to the pages of history
A better comparison would have been the James Bulger murder (which was still over 30 years ago)in which two ten year old boys were convicted of murder - they served less than 9 years in the same secure boarding school type facility which had housed Mary Bell.
But there is a world of difference between the actions of Thompson, Venables and Bell and the momentary foolishness of the 13 year old in the OP.
I never said that the 13 year old in the OP should get a pass I simply opined that in my view his culpability was minimal
---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
|
|
12/17/2017, 8:43 pm
|
Link to this post
PM mais oui
Blog
|
cooter50
Registered user
Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
The parent(s) involved with the 13 year old are also a component of the problem. Having a loaded weapon in availability range of that child, not keeping it under wraps, under lock and key, keeping the child distanced from it. As well teaching the child the difference between right wrong and the indifference of those around them to law.
|
|
12/17/2017, 9:45 pm
|
Link to this post
PM cooter50
Blog
|
cooter50
Registered user
Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
And as to the OP, Yes I do still believe in our Judicial system fraught with issues yes but better than I see elsewhere.
|
|
12/17/2017, 10:27 pm
|
Link to this post
PM cooter50
Blog
|
katie5445
Administrator
Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Still believe in our jury system?
quote:
cooter50 wrote:
The parent(s) involved with the 13 year old are also a component of the problem. Having a loaded weapon in availability range of that child, not keeping it under wraps, under lock and key, keeping the child distanced from it. As well teaching the child the difference between right wrong and the indifference of those around them to law.
I taught my kids the difference between right and wrong, same with the grand kids, the problem lies with they do wrong sometimes anyway, that is part of child rearing and growing up. When I had guns, they didn't know where they were, should be a no brainer.
|
|
12/18/2017, 4:48 pm
|
Link to this post
PM katie5445
Blog
|
